Why does Houston lag so much in transit development

[nate]

The point of mass transit is not to provide alternatives for travel for the sake of providing alternatives. It is to systematically move people quickly and efficiently throughout the city. Whether they move by private vehicle, carpool, bus, light rail, or on their own two feet is irrelevant insofar as they are moved efficiently.

Exactly.

People here and in the "urbanist" community are far to concerned about how people get around, rather than whether their solutions make sense economically.

So long as people are given accurate price signals, they will make the efficient decision for themselves. I cannot think of transit decisions that are more heavily distorted than the price of public transit. These systems (at least in Houston, Dallas, etc) are heavily subsidized and people generally ride them because they are cheap, not because of the quality or convenience. This subsidy encourages more people to use public transit, perhaps taking cars of the road, but it might actually contribute to decreased density or "urbanity". Subsidizing people's ability to live further from work only makes it more likely that they will do so, rather than taking cheaper transporation like bikes or walking. A myriad of considerations come into play here, but subsidies encourage people to make bad decisions. Take away METRO subsidies and allow private buses to prowl the streets would result in transit prices equal to the costs of services delivered.

[KinkaidAlum]

My OPINION (so take it for what it's worth) is that (right or wrong) the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it because they don't think they'll ever benefit from it. I know that opinion seems odd in the intellectually cocooned environment of an internet message board like this one where nearly everyone is in favor of mass transit, but remember that we're a teeny tiny proportion of folks living in Houston, so our opinions and ideas are not representative of the populace as a whole. It's kind of like the famous person (dont' remember who it was, as I wasn't born yet) who was shocked that McGovern had lost the election in 1972, as she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon, even though it was a huge landslide.

This is what I will never understand about Houstonians.

Didn't the people vote to expand the rail system?

Now, I realize that many people who voted against the rail are now claiming they voted for the rail but only down Westpark, but the RAIL ISSUE WON on election day. Not sure how you can deduct then that the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it...

[TheNiche]

Niche, are you an economist? Or do you just really know your stuff?

I use HAIF to keep my economics training sharp, but both feet are firmly grounded in the private sector.

[TheNiche]

Not only do I stand by my statements (in part because The Niche agreed with much of my post, albeit he tried to split hairs in a pitiful attempt to prove his original point), but I challenge The Niche to provide us with one (1) historical example of a city that has constructed its system, as we know it today, all at once. . .which is what I believe he's suggesting METRO should wait (10 to 15 years?) to do. Now, if every other transit authority, in the USA/world built successful rail systems contrary to The Niche's proposed model, then guess who I'm going to side with. AND Finally, for all that read this post. . .look at my post and then look at the Niche's post, then ask yourself which one makes more sense, and takes less effort, words to explain. In my line of work, we have a saying. . .if you have to do to much explaining, you're loosing the argument (because it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell us the Sky is Bl ue when we can look up and see that the sky is Blue). . .Make sense?

To my knowledge, you are correct that no other city has constructed its system as exists in the present all at once. But then, that wasn't what I was advocating...that would be extreme and wasteful. On the other extreme, we have peicemeal transit development, such as the Red Line; it too is wasteful. I seek balance. When a city is sufficiently developed that transit becomes feasible, it should be developed systematically. As far as light rail in Houston is concerned, this means implementing the Red Line and the University Line simultaneously. The benefit of the two lines acting in concert exceeds the benefit of either one standing alone. Future expansions of the system should attempt to leverage further synergies wherever possible, but should only be built if the benefit of the system expansion exceeds the cost.

I don't really care what other transit agencies do. I do not see it as my place in the world to blindly follow the examples of others.

Complicated issues cannot easily be simplified. I guess that I could just throw my conclusions out there without a single premise, but that'd be intellectually lazy. You may disagree with my reasoning, but it sure is funny that you haven't given me a good reason why.

[tierwestah]

I can't answer the first part of your question. However, the second part is definetly no.

Not only do I stand by my statements (in part because The Nicheagreed with much of my post, albeit he tried to split hairs in a pitiful attempt to prove his original point), but I challenge The Niche to provide us with one (1) historical example of a city that has constructed its system, as we know it today, all at once. . .which is what I believe he's suggesting METRO should wait (10 to 15 years?) to do. Now, if every other transit authority, in the USA/world built successful rail systems contrary to The Niche's proposed model, then guess who I'm going to side with. AND Finally, for all that read this post. . .look at my post and then look at the Niche's post, then ask yourself which one makes more sense, and takes less effort, words to explain. In my line of work, we have a saying. . .if you have to do to much explaining, you're loosing the argument (because it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell us the Sky is Bl ue when we can look up and see that the sky is Blue). . .Make sense?

I'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels this way about some of Niche's posts. I 'm sure he means well but some if it is too confusing, wordy, and hard to understand. It's like it's easier to say 2+2=4 instead of saying 2 X 2 +4 +1-5=4. Just constructive criticsm Niche.

But i agree, we should not wait 15 years to build rail or when its so called "economically feasable". Today's unsolved problems will be tommorrows problems to clean up. If we are trying to improve traffic, improve air quality, we start now. Kinkaid made a good point, if the majority of Houstonians didn't want rail, why did the referendum 2003 suggest that we did? Why do our ridership numbers indicate that people in Houston will ride it?

Rail should be not just an issue of cost. There are enough people who live in Houston without a car for rail to be useful. What about those people? What about a handicapped person who can't drive? What about visitors who come in to town? Forgive me for saying this, but to say that Houston doesn't need rail is basically looking out for the middle and upperclass, assuming everybody owns a car. That 's almost a form of bigotry.

Dallas has built a massive transit system and they're in the same boat as Houston when it comes to sprawl and massive freeways. On top of that, they don't even get the same ridership per mile with a larger system than Houston does with a smaller rail system. One thing i love about Dallas is that they plan ahead. They think about the fututre. They're not small minded as to think that NOW is the only time that matters.

[C2H]

I'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels this way about some of Niche's posts. I 'm sure he means well but some if it is too confusing, wordy, and hard to understand. It's like it's easier to say 2+2=4 instead of saying 2 X 2 +4 +1-5=4. Just constructive criticsm Niche.

But i agree, we should not wait 15 years to build rail or when its so called "economically feasable". Today's unsolved problems will be tommorrows problems to clean up. If we are trying to improve traffic, improve air quality, we start now. Kinkaid made a good point, if the majority of Houstonians didn't want rail, why did the referendum 2003 suggest that we did? Why do our ridership numbers indicate that people in Houston will ride it?

Rail should be not just an issue of cost. There are enough people who live in Houston without a car for rail to be useful. What about those people? What about a handicapped person who can't drive? What about visitors who come in to town? Forgive me for saying this, but to say that Houston doesn't need rail is basically looking out for the middle and upperclass, assuming everybody owns a car. That 's almost a form of bigotry.

Dallas has built a massive transit system and they're in the same boat as Houston when it comes to sprawl and massive freeways. On top of that, they don't even get the same ridership per mile with a larger system than Houston does with a smaller rail system. One thing i love about Dallas is that they plan ahead. They think about the fututre. They're not small minded as to think that NOW is the only time that matters.

good post

[webdude]

Houston does plan ahead, just takes longer than most.

[TheNiche]

I'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels this way about some of Niche's posts. I 'm sure he means well but some if it is too confusing, wordy, and hard to understand. It's like it's easier to say 2+2=4 instead of saying 2 X 2 +4 +1-5=4. Just constructive criticsm Niche.

If your criticism of my point were correct, then 4 ≠ 4.

My conclusions are different from 214's. He says the answer is four. I say that the answer is A_PV (X + Y + Z) = 3.5.

But i agree, we should not wait 15 years to build rail or when its so called "economically feasable". Today's unsolved problems will be tommorrows problems to clean up. If we are trying to improve traffic, improve air quality, we start now.

Economic feasibility accounts for effects on traffic, air quality, etc., as well as the time value of the benefits and costs associated with the issues.

Kinkaid made a good point, if the majority of Houstonians didn't want rail, why did the referendum 2003 suggest that we did?

What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Besides, I'm approaching this from an economic point of view, not a political one. Political implementation warps the dynamics of the issue. That's where the concept of a starter line becomes a necessity. If everyone thought in a like-minded and non-partisan way, it wouldn't be necessary, but alas...compromises and waste are the result.

Why do our ridership numbers indicate that people in Houston will ride it?

It replaced a lot of bus lines right off the bat. Then METRO reconfigured the bus routes in such a way that many bus riders are now forced to transfer on and off of the LRT at various points. For a fair number of people, it has increased their total transit time, but short of driving a car, they don't have much of an option.

This is pretty typical of what happens when LRT is implemented, even when bus routes aren't manipulated to induce high ridership. People who used to ride busses that operate at low costs per passenger mile shift over to LRT, which tends to be somewhat more comfortable and somewhat more fast than busses serving the same route, but that has a higher cost per passenger mile (usually about double) without ticket prices reflecting that cost. If memory serves, this was the conclusion derived from the MAX system in Portland. I'm going to have to dig up my old urban economics textbook and double-check, though.

Rail should be not just an issue of cost. There are enough people who live in Houston without a car for rail to be useful. What about those people? What about a handicapped person who can't drive? What about visitors who come in to town? Forgive me for saying this, but to say that Houston doesn't need rail is basically looking out for the middle and upperclass, assuming everybody owns a car. That 's almost a form of bigotry.

Mass transit is a system that includes more options than just LRT. Busses are the least expensive and most flexible option. A good bus system will include many local routes as well as express routes.

If you look at a METRO service map, disproportionate resources are allocated to bus routes in areas with high concentrations of minorities and poor folks...in addition, the METRO staff is disproportionately comprised of minorities. Light rail, on the other hand, causes land prices to rise to the point that economically disadvantaged people do not have LRT as an option within their own neighborhood...and because it tends to cause price and rent appreciation in poor inner-city neighborhoods, that causes a slow exodus of poor people to the suburbs, which aren't served as well by mass transit and often aren't as close to employment opportunities.

The only way to ensure that the exodus of poor folks was avoided would be to implement the extreme case of light rail expansion, and to do it all at once throughout the region so that no one neighborhood has any more of a transportation amenity factor than another...and you know my stance on that approach.

[JJxvi]

The fact is, Houston is much better off than other cities because we invest in low-cost solutions that WORK, not light rail that costs at least $40 million per mile and has a neglible effect on transportation.

Out of simple curiosity...how much does it cost to widen and maintain a freeway?

[TheNiche]

Out of simple curiosity...how much does it cost to widen and maintain a freeway?

Depends upon which freeway and what the characteristics of the existing and proposed facilities are.

[lockmat]

Good post Niche, I actually feel like we're getting somewhere now.

It replaced a lot of bus lines right off the bat. Then METRO reconfigured the bus routes in such a way that many bus riders are now forced to transfer on and off of the LRT at various points. For a fair number of people, it has increased their total transit time, but short of driving a car, they don't have much of an option.

This is pretty typical of what happens when LRT is implemented, even when bus routes aren't manipulated to induce high ridership. People who used to ride busses that operate at low costs per passenger mile shift over to LRT, which tends to be somewhat more comfortable and somewhat more fast than busses serving the same route, but that has a higher cost per passenger mile (usually about double) without ticket prices reflecting that cost.

For better or worse, don't you think that's what they should have done anyway? I'm not interpreting necessarily that you think it's wrong, but if they're going to build it, it wouldn't make sense to keep certain bus routes in place if the LRT will serve them. If the cancellation of those routes reflect in LRT ridership, that's probably a good thing. If it didn't, that just means public transit ridership would at the least mean it's down in general, right? I'd like to see the overall numbers that include busses and LRT since the existence of LRT. But I guess another question is, did Metro manipulate bus routes to induce high ridership just for numbers sake, or did they in the process maintain the needs of riders and the routes they need to take?

If you look at a METRO service map, disproportionate resources are allocated to bus routes in areas with high concentrations of minorities and poor folks...in addition, the METRO staff is disproportionately comprised of minorities. Light rail, on the other hand, causes land prices to rise to the point that economically disadvantaged people do not have LRT as an option within their own neighborhood...and because it tends to cause price and rent appreciation in poor inner-city neighborhoods, that causes a slow exodus of poor people to the suburbs, which aren't served as well by mass transit and often aren't as close to employment opportunities.

The only way to ensure that the exodus of poor folks was avoided would be to implement the extreme case of light rail expansion, and to do it all at once throughout the region so that no one neighborhood has any more of a transportation amenity factor than another...and you know my stance on that approach.

Good info. Something to think about.

And I've looked at Metro's construction and completion dates and it looks like they intend to implement it all at the same time. Not sure if I'm looking at the correct information. I think I am, but I get a little confused sometimes when looking at it.

But another thing Niche, although we have to look at it from an economical standpoint, don't we have to include other goals as well and weigh out the cost? Isn't part of the reason for LRT to get any kind of vehicle off the road? Some goals will not be fully reached of course, whether that be economical or logistical.

[North End]

With the future expansion going east to west, what will be the closest station where the future line will cross with the current line? Since it will start at the University of Houston, I am guessing close to the Museum District area. I work in the Medical Center and I would have no problem settling close to Hermann Park whenever the day comes that I will actually buy. Some great homes with decent prices in what looks to be an up and coming area.

[TheNiche]

For better or worse, don't you think that's what they should have done anyway? I'm not interpreting necessarily that you think it's wrong, but if they're going to build it, it wouldn't make sense to keep certain bus routes in place if the LRT will serve them. If the cancellation of those routes reflect in LRT ridership, that's probably a good thing. If it didn't, that just means public transit ridership would at the least mean it's down in general, right? I'd like to see the overall numbers that include busses and LRT since the existence of LRT. But I guess another question is, did Metro manipulate bus routes to induce high ridership just for numbers sake, or did they in the process maintain the needs of riders and the routes they need to take?

And I've looked at Metro's construction and completion dates and it looks like they intend to implement it all at the same time. Not sure if I'm looking at the correct information. I think I am, but I get a little confused sometimes when looking at it.

But another thing Niche, although we have to look at it from an economical standpoint, don't we have to include other goals as well and weigh out the cost? Isn't part of the reason for LRT to get any kind of vehicle off the road? Some goals will not be fully reached of course, whether that be economical or logistical.

When an LRT line starts operation, bus routes do need to be tweaked to ensure system efficiency. Make no mistake about that.

But that doesn't mean that all bus routes that parallel the LRT for any amount of distance must be chopped into two distinct routes with an LRT connection. There needs to be accounting for the fact that every time a commuter has to make a transfer between LRT and bus, they'll have to wait. Sometimes it just makes more sense for the bus route to be continuous...this is especially true when busses run some routes infrequently or unreliably.

Phase Two of the implementation plan is much more to my liking than Phase One, but in my own little world, I'd have liked to have seen them all rolled into one, and with more service oriented toward southwest Houston, where our population density is greatest.

The economic standpoint is more than financial cost and benefit in terms of ridership and time-savings. A good analysis would be inclusive of the intangibles.

With the future expansion going east to west, what will be the closest station where the future line will cross with the current line? Since it will start at the University of Houston, I am guessing close to the Museum District area. I work in the Medical Center and I would have no problem settling close to Hermann Park whenever the day comes that I will actually buy. Some great homes with decent prices in what looks to be an up and coming area.

The crossing will be near Wheeler Station in the south part of Midtown. Hopefully, when they build the full-fledged Wheeler transit center, it'll include a fair number of condos and apartments, but everything is very preliminary for the moment...and the TMC, Inc. nixed the transit center development that would've been at Fannin and Pressler.

[WesternGulf]

...and the TMC, Inc. nixed the transit center development that would've been at Fannin and Pressler.

Where did you hear this from TheNiche? First, I do not believe the TMC, Inc. has any control over the project since it is not in their campus borders and what would stop this project anyway? The TMC is malnourished when talking residential and retail development like this.

Here is the latest rendering

[TheNiche]

Where did you hear this from TheNiche? First, I do not believe the TMC, Inc. has any control over the project since it is not in their campus borders and what would stop this project anyway? The TMC is malnourished when talking residential and retail development like this.

Here is the latest rendering

I did some work on one of the four short-listed proposals that wasn't chosen and was then preparing to do work for Transwestern on the same site...then I got informed that the TMC, Inc. had veto power and used it.

Makes me curious, though...where'd you get the rendering?

[WesternGulf]

That's what I am currenly looking for. I saved the image on Imageshack now I am trying to find out where I found it again. I believe I read an article and it had some information and it lead to me to the rendering is how I originally found it. Anyone that works with projects may know any info? largeTEXAS?

[TJones]

OK, OK, I have read enough. I will tell you EXACTLY why we are sooooooooo behind in mass transit. We are the energy capital of the world, our whole economy in Houston is based on OIL ! Now, if we had mass transit and didn't have all this sprawl, requiring everyone that moves here to buy a car in order to drive 50 miles to get anywhere you need to go and burn OIL, then what kind of example would we be setting by trying to CONSERVE our economy's number one resource ? I mean really ?

[lockmat]

OK, OK, I have read enough. I will tell you EXACTLY why we are sooooooooo behind in mass transit. We are the energy capital of the world, our whole economy in Houston is based on OIL ! Now, if we had mass transit and didn't have all this sprawl, requiring everyone that moves here to buy a car in order to drive 50 miles to get anywhere you need to go and burn OIL, then what kind of example would we be setting by trying to CONSERVE our economy's number one resource ? I mean really ?

Wouldn't that be ironically great if oil company employees all used public transit to get to work?

[houstonfella]

My 2 cents. In the 80s Houston solved a major problem for suburban commuters by building the HOV lanes on the major freeways. Now people from The Woodlands, Katy, Sugar Land ... etc ... can use Park n Ride and be downtown in 30 minutes or less in rush hour. That probably stalled the "we gotta get trains to the people" problem for time being.

Think about it: when there is no rush hour, we get into our cars and drive to whatever local destination and park. Houston has parking and lots of it. The Los Angeleses and Houston's of the world are culturally automobile oriented; that won't change for decades (if ever). We do have 7.5 miles of light rail that has connected some very important parts of the city. It was expensive and the feds didn't help us whatsoever (thanks wrong way DeLay). We still need to move forward with rail and, hopefully that will begin before I die. But, in the meantime, vrroooommmm!!!!!! Top up or down?????

[Mark F. Barnes]

Wouldn't that be ironically great if oil company employees all used public transit to get to work?

I know a lot that do, due to the parking nightmares downtown.

[musicman]

but now I am a fan of cities with progress that you can see: Dallas & Austin to name a few!

yeah..austin is REALLY progressive traffic-wise LOL.

Couldn't have said it better, myself!

How's the new stadium coming along in Dallas?

[musicman]

As silly and expensive as this sounds, if all the major streets in Houston were replaced with lightrail lines, we'd really not need a use for cars (it's sounds stupid, but it is true, all we need is a vast network, and each additional line, no matter where it is, helps us get one step closer to it, and less dependant on cars). I can imagine that all the stop could get annoying, but it would be functional as a means of transportation.

Let's try and stay in the world of reality.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Let's try and stay in the world of reality.

Good luck with that one!

[musicman]

Wow...look at all those people in the station.

LOL..i was wondering the same thing.

[musicman]

In your theater of the mind, when will that be?

If state/city/METRO planners adopted your rationale, there would be little to no point in ever building another rail or road. Construction costs for these things rise over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it gets. Not the reverse. This is due to supply and demand issues, as well as currency/property valuation issues. The excuse you provide for not building a rail alternative is, IMHO, misplaced. Had METRO began to build its rail system back during the Whitmire administration (over a quarter century ago), and continue with expansion through today, it would have cost far less than what it will eventually end up costing to build a system today. Additionally, the City would probably have an impressive system that would provide real alternatives for travel between many of the City's business centers, entertainment destinations, densely populated areas, and airports. Does rail cost? Sure it does. However, it is an investment we make now so that future generations of Houstonians and visitors will have an efficient transportation option that will increase their quality of life while in the City. The price we pay today, will be diminished over time as the system grows.

There IS a reason why rail was dismantled here and in many cities. The advent of the motor vehicle made travel much more convenient esp in cities with sprawl. Of course, rail is more effective in cities with a dense population.

How many people ride rail is dallas vs. commute by cars? Can you provide any numbers to show how "successful" it is there?

[musicman]

This is what I will never understand about Houstonians.

Didn't the people vote to expand the rail system?

Now, I realize that many people who voted against the rail are now claiming they voted for the rail but only down Westpark, but the RAIL ISSUE WON on election day. Not sure how you can deduct then that the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it...

Remember the ballot was developed to include every public transportation option, not just light rail. This included expanded bus service, more HOV lanes, more park and rides, etc. So when a voter who wanted more park and rides voted, they also voted for light rail whether they wanted that specifically or not.

Good luck with that one!

I guess some people just don't manage their lives in an orderly manner. In my house, I don't spend more than i can afford.

[musicman]

I'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels this way about some of Niche's posts. I 'm sure he means well but some if it is too confusing, wordy, and hard to understand. It's like it's easier to say 2+2=4 instead of saying 2 X 2 +4 +1-5=4. Just constructive criticsm Niche.

But i agree, we should not wait 15 years to build rail or when its so called "economically feasable". Today's unsolved problems will be tommorrows problems to clean up. If we are trying to improve traffic, improve air quality, we start now. Kinkaid made a good point, if the majority of Houstonians didn't want rail, why did the referendum 2003 suggest that we did? Why do our ridership numbers indicate that people in Houston will ride it?

No the vote was on all metro projects not just rail.

Rail should be not just an issue of cost. There are enough people who live in Houston without a car for rail to be useful. What about those people? What about a handicapped person who can't drive? What about visitors who come in to town? Forgive me for saying this, but to say that Houston doesn't need rail is basically looking out for the middle and upperclass, assuming everybody owns a car. That 's almost a form of bigotry.

Because of the geography of Houston, MOST residents will NEVER have easy access to rail. Handcapped persons use METROLIFT which comes to their homes. That is NOT a form of bigotry because you seem to be forgetting we also have a bus system that is more easily accesible to most do to its size.

Dallas has built a massive transit system and they're in the same boat as Houston when it comes to sprawl and massive freeways. On top of that, they don't even get the same ridership per mile with a larger system than Houston does with a smaller rail system. One thing i love about Dallas is that they plan ahead. They think about the fututre. They're not small minded as to think that NOW is the only time that matters.

So you say spending money on a system that gets less ridership per mile than Houston is a GOOD thing? For me, that means the funds spent are being used LESS efficiently.

Out of simple curiosity...how much does it cost to widen and maintain a freeway?

It is a cost vs benefits issue. Yes building freeways is expensive, but they provide the most benefits to the most people.

[TJones]

Let's try and stay in the world of reality.

Quit badgering Plastic's little brother musicman, you big meanie !

[musicman]

For better or worse, don't you think that's what they should have done anyway? I'm not interpreting necessarily that you think it's wrong, but if they're going to build it, it wouldn't make sense to keep certain bus routes in place if the LRT will serve them. If the cancellation of those routes reflect in LRT ridership, that's probably a good thing. If it didn't, that just means public transit ridership would at the least mean it's down in general, right? I'd like to see the overall numbers that include busses and LRT since the existence of LRT. But I guess another question is, did Metro manipulate bus routes to induce high ridership just for numbers sake, or did they in the process maintain the needs of riders and the routes they need to take?

For public transportation to be most efficient, it should move the most people in the shortest amount of time.

Having people transfer increases travel times. Increased travel times mean less people would be likely to ride it. METRO also eliminated several routes due to funding issues following construction of the light rail. I'm talking routes not near the rail. So would removing a bus line be beneficial in your opinion in favor of rail?

[MiDTOWNeR]

OK, OK, I have read enough. I will tell you EXACTLY why we are sooooooooo behind in mass transit. We are the energy capital of the world, our whole economy in Houston is based on OIL ! Now, if we had mass transit and didn't have all this sprawl, requiring everyone that moves here to buy a car in order to drive 50 miles to get anywhere you need to go and burn OIL, then what kind of example would we be setting by trying to CONSERVE our economy's number one resource ? I mean really ?

I been waiting for someone to post this!